The Effects of Geodetic Configuration of the Network in Deformation

Transkript

Analysis
M. Onur KAPLAN, Tevfik AYAN and Serdar EROL Turkey
Key words: Network configuration, deformation analysis, optimization, confidence ellipses
SUMMARY
The optimization and design of monitoring scheme should precede the field observation and
analysis procedures. Optimized monitoring schemes ensure the detection of predicted
deformations according to a selected tolerance criterion. In this study, the effects of
configuration of Gerede micro geodetic network in deformation analysis were researched. In
this network, at first the deformation analysis has been carried out with respect to the results
obtained through the direction and distance measurements made in 1983, and 1985. Then,
measurement plans in two epochs were optimized. According to the optimized measurement
plan deformation analysis has been carried out. Finally, deformation analysis results, which
were obtained after optimization of measurement plan were compared and interpreted with
the results that were obtained before optimization of measurement plans.
TS29 Positioning and Measurement Technologies and Practices III – Applications and Processing
M. Onur Kaplan, Tevfik Ayan and Serdar Erol
TS29.6 The Effects of Geodetic Configuration of the Network on Deformation Analysis
FIG Working Week 2004
Athens, Greece, May 22-27, 2004
1/15
Analysis
M. Onur KAPLAN, Tevfik AYAN and Serdar EROL Turkey
1. INTRODUCTION
The aim of deformation analysis is the detection; localization and modelling of point
movements in multiply measured networks. Such an analysis provides valuable information
about the deformations of physical and man-made objects on the earth surface. In the
deformation studies, geodetic observations are repeated at different epochs of time. The
observations of each epoch are adjusted independently. From coordinate differences between
the epochs, the parameters of the deformation model are estimated and conclusions on the
object deformations are drawn.
The word “optimization” has recently come into use in geodesy to indicate designing
networks based on well-specified quantitative considerations and techniques; it suggests
planning for the best solution. Since design of deformation networks has major significance
to determine deformation, the geodetic networks must have optimal design. An optimized
monitoring scheme ensure the most economic field campaign, and it helps in identifying,
eliminating, or minimizing the effects of the gross and systematic errors existing in the
observation data prior to the estimation of the deformation parameters in order to avoid
misinterpreting measuring errors as deformation phenomena.
In this study, the effects of configuration of Gerede micro geodetic network in deformation
analysis were researched. The subject area is located on a fault line near Gerede around The
North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ) in Turkey. The network established for the detection of
possible crustal movements in the area covering 4.2 km2 consists of 8 points. In this network,
at first the deformation analysis has been carried out with respect to the results obtained
through the direction and distance measurements made in 1983, and 1985. The deformation
analysis method applied in this study is called “deformation analysis with relative confidence
ellipses”. Horizontal movements on the deformation points were determined regarding 95%
statistical confidences. Then, the measurement plans in two epochs were optimized. In this
optimization problem, some measurements were out of from the measurements plan. This
procedure was repeated until a satisfactory network configuration was found. According to
the optimized measurement plans, deformation analysis has been carried out. Finally,
deformation analysis results, which were obtained after optimization of monitoring schemes,
were compared and interpreted with the results that were obtained before optimization of
measurement plans.
2. OPTIMIZATION OF GEODETIC NETWORK
The proper and optimal design and subsequent assessment of geodetic network is an integral
part of most surveying engineering projects. Optimization and design are carried out before
2/15
the measurements are actually made. The purpose of an optimal design is to solve for both
the network configuration and observations accuracy in order to meet the desired criteria.
Optimization means minimizing or maximizing an objective function which represents the
criteria adopted to define the “quality of a network”. Generally the quality of a control
network is characterized by its precision, reliability,strength, and economy (Seemkooei
2001).
Different optimization problems are usually classified into different orders; Grafarend (1974)
identifies four orders of design:
−
Zero-order design (ZOD): design of a referance system
−
First-order design (FOD): design of the network configuration
−
Second-order design (SOD): selection of the weights for the network observations
−
Third-order design (TOD): addition of observations to improve an existing network.
There are two methods that can be used to solve the design problem, namely, analytical
method and trial and error method. In the trial and error method, a solution to the design
problem is postulated upon which the design criteria are computed. If either of these criteria
were not satisfied, a new solution is required and the criteria functions are recomputed. The
procedure is repeated until a satisfactory network is found. In contrast, the analytical method
offers specific algorithms for the solution of particular design problems, which do not require
human intervention. The term analytical design is used to describe a method that solves a
particular design problem by a unique series of mathematical steps (Kuang 1991).
In deformation analysis,the optimal design of network and optimization of measurement plan
play crucial role. Objectives of the optimization of a deformation network are:
−
To meet a predetermined accuracy goal
−
To establish a self-checking and reliable mathematical model
−
To yield sufficient sensivity in respect to certain a priori known functions of the
parameters
−
To design an observation plan which is feasible under pratical and financial constraints.
In this study, the first measurement plan was optimazed according to aim function. As the
aim function, it was researched the geometry that respond both the mathematical-statistical
test and the first deformation values in deformation points. Therefore, the test statistic was
T=
−1
di
di
2σ 20
diT Q
(1)
selected as the aim function. The measurement plan that has minor impact on test statistic
was researched. During this procedure, the geometry of the control network was not changed.
In this procedure, firstly the measurement that had the least effect on test statistic was out of
the measurement plan. After detecting the first redundant measurement, the second redundant
measurement was researched. This procedure continued iteratively until a satisfactory
3/15
network configuration- respond to the first deformation greatness in deformation points- was
obtained. In the end, according to the last measurement plan, deformation analysis was done.
3. DEFORMATION ANALYSIS
Any object, natural or man-made, undergoes changes in space and time. Deformation refers
to the changes a deformable body undergoes in it is shape, dimension, and position. Since the
results of deformation surveys are directly relevant to the safety of human life and
engineering surveying, recently deformation analysis has become more important.
In general, the deformation analysis is managed in three steps in geodetic networks. In the
first step, the measurements that were carried out in t1 and t2 measurement epochs are
adjusted separately, according to free adjustment method; outliers and systematic errors are
detected and eliminated in this step. In the second step, global test procedure is carried out
and by this test it is ensured that if the network point, which were assumed as stabile, stayed
actually stabile in ∆t = t2–t1 time interval or not. In here, in the global test, after the free
adjustment calculations of the networks separately, the combined free adjustment is applied
both epoch measurements. During the combined free adjustment computation, the position of
the assumed stabile points, are given as one single group of points for both epochs, on the
other hand the positions of deformation points in t1 instant are assumed as if one group of
points and the positions in the t2 instant are assumed as another group of points. In addition to
this, in combined free adjustment, the partial-trace minimum solution is applied for the
stabile points (tr(Qstabile, stabile) = min). After determining a group of stabile points as the
results of global test, the deformation points are handled one by one and it is inspected that if
their positions are changed or not (Ayan 1982; Ayan et al. 1991, Erol 2003).
In this study “The Relative Confidence Ellipses Method” was applied. All the observations in
the two periods were adjusted together as free nets by taking as datum points, which were
assumed to be stable with respect to each other. For this process the datum point coordinate
unknowns were taken as a one-valued set, but the other points were considered as a twovalued set, each value corresponding to each period.
The difference vector between the coordinates estimated from the combined adjustment of
the points Pi was written as
di =
d yi 
 
d xi 
 Y2i
=
X 2i
− Y1i 
(2)
− X1i 
and with the cofactor matrix Qdi, the test statistic was
T
T=
−1
d i Qdi d i
2σ 02
,F
2,f;α
; f = n – u + di
(3)
4/15
Where, σ 02 was the estimated unit variance of the combined adjustment, f was the degree of
freedom of this adjustment, F1−α;2,f freedom 2 and f in level of significance α. If T>F2, f; α ,
the zero hypothesis Ho : E (di ) = 0 was rejected.
Deformation vectors were computed from
d si = dx i + dyi
2
2
(4)
and their directions were computed from
 dy i 


 dx i 
α i = arctg
(5)
Confidence ellipses can be drawn geometrically using the results of the zero-hypothesis di = 0
(with
d = dx 2 + dy 2 as magnitude of the difference vector): first drawing the displacement
vector and then the confidence ellipse at its top. If the displacement vector is not completely
lying in the confidence ellipse, the hypothesis “the point has not moved” is rejected.
4. NUMERICAL APPLICATION
A significant part of Turkey is subjected to frequent and damaging earthquakes. Turkey is
located on the relatively small Anatolian plate and, which is squeezed between three other
major tectonic plates- the north–moving African and Arabian plates located to the south, and
the south–moving Eurasian plate located to the north. The combination of these plate
movements is forcing the Anatolian plate to move west into the Aegean Sea. This movement
produces fault structures at the boundary between the plates, most significantly The North
Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ). The NAFZ stretches 1500 km across Turkey and has been the
source of eight earthquakes of magnitude seven or greater in the last century.
In this study, the effects of configuration of Gerede micro geodetic network on deformation
analysis were researched. The subject area is located on a fault line near Gerede around The
North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ) in Turkey. The network established for the detection of
possible crustal movements in the area covering 4.2 km2 consists of 8 points. There are 23
distances and 48 directions measurement in Gerede micro geodetic network. The
measurements were carried out between 1983 and 1985.
Before starting to optimize the first measurement plan it was necessary to decide that: which
measurements’ influences are stronger in the network, distances or directions? For this reason
firstly two epoch measurements were adjusted through the free adjustment procedure
according to the first measurement plan. In the end, the adjusted coordinates have been
obtained. In this study, from now on these free adjusted coordinates that were carried off
5/15
according to the first measurement plan are called: “adjusted coordinates group one
(ACG1)”.
Figure 1: Configuration of the micro geodetic network in Gerede
After these computations, alternately distance measurements were out of from the first
measurement plan. According to the new measurement plans, control network was adjusted.
The adjusted coordinates, which were obtained according to the new measurement plans are
called from now on: “adjusted coordinates group two (ACG2)”. The computations that were
explained above for distance measurements were done again for direction measurements.
This time the distance measurements stayed steady, and changes were done in direction
measurements in the first measurement plan. In the end adjusted coordinates were obtained.
These coordinates are called: “adjusted coordinates group three (ACG3)”.
Finally, the differences both ACG1-ACG2 and ACG1-ACG3 were researched. Differences
both ACG1-ACG2 and ACG1-ACG3 are given in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table4.
Table 1: Adjusted coordinate differences when 1-3
distance measurement is out of from
the first measurement plan
Compt. 13
PN.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1983
1985
ACG1-ACG2
ACG1-ACG2
dy(mm) dx(mm) dy(mm) dx(mm)
-0.01
-0.04
-0.01
-0.13
-0.01
0.00
-0.03
0.00
0.00
0.03
-0.01
0.11
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.01
-0.01
-0.04
Table 2: Adjusted coordinate differences
when 4-5
distance measurement is out of from
Compt. 45
PN.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1983
1985
ACG1-ACG2
ACG1-ACG2
-0.14
-0.07
0.00
-0.01
-0.17
-0.02
-0.02
0.00
-0.18
-0.06
-0.02
0.00
-0.54
0.02
-0.04
0.00
0.75
0.43
0.07
0.02
0.21
-0.13
0.01
-0.01
0.10
-0.08
0.00
0.00
-0.02
-0.08
0.00
0.00
6/15
Table 3: Adjusted coordinate differences when 1-3
direction measurement is out of from
the first measurement plan.
Compt. 13
PN.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1983
1985
ACG1-ACG3
ACG1-ACG3
-0.04
-0.10
-0.12
-0.29
-0.01
0.02
-0.01
0.07
0.14
0.02
0.44
0.07
-0.02
0.00
-0.06
0.01
-0.04
0.03
-0.13
0.10
-0.02
0.02
-0.05
0.05
-0.01
0.00
-0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.01
0.00
Table 4: Adjusted coordinate differences
when 4-5 direction measurement
is out of from the first measurement
plan.
Compt. 45
PN.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1983
1985
ACG1-ACG3
ACG1-ACG3
0.11
-0.02
-0.52
0.21
-0.03
0.00
0.15
0.08
-0.17
0.03
0.85
-0.02
-0.40
0.33
1.69
-1.30
0.12
-0.74
-1.17
3.07
0.12
0.18
-0.15
-1.07
0.12
0.15
-0.37
-0.65
0.14
0.08
-0.49
-0.32
In the light of differences both ACG1-ACG2 and ACG1-ACG2 it was concluded that the
effects of direction measurements were stronger than the effects of distance measurements in
the control network. Hence, it was decided that direction measurements had to be remained in
the observation plan. In the end, by getting out distance measurements from the first
measurement plan, the first measurements plan was optimized.
Before starting to optimize the measurement plan, the test statistic
T
T=
−1
d i Q di d i
2σ 20
(6)
was selected as the aim function and the measurement plan that had minor impact on test
statistic was researched. For this aim, alternately distance measurements were out of from the
first measurement plan. According to new measurement plans free adjustment and analysis
procedures were done. In the end of analyses, test statistic values were obtained. These test
statistic values were compared with the first statistic values that were obtained according to
the first measurement plan. Finally it was decided that 1-3, 1-4, 2-3, 4-5, 4-6, and 5-7
distance measurements had lower effect in test statistic value. The results are given in Table
5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10.
7/15
Table 5: Test statistic values when 1-3 distance Table 6: Test statistic values when 1-4 distance
measurement is out of from the first
measurement is out of from the first
measurement plan.
measurement plan.
Compt. 13
Critical Value
P.N
2
3
4
5
6
First Situation
4.82
Test Statistic
56.004
30.844
14.666
13.848
9.534
Second Situation
4.83
Test Statistic
56.026
30.863
14.179
14.137
9.513
Table 7: Test statistic values when 2-3
distance measurement is out from
Compt. 23
Critical Value
P.N
2
3
4
5
6
First Situation
4.82
Test Statistic
56.004
30.844
14.666
13.848
9.534
Compt. 14
Critical Value
P.N
2
3
4
5
6
First Situation
4.82
Test Statistic
56.004
30.844
14.666
13.848
9.534
Second Situation
4.83
Test Statistic
55.672
29.304
14.622
13.909
9.236
Table 8: Test statistic values when 5-7
distance measurement is out from
Second Situation
4.83
Test Statistic
54.247
27.095
15.242
13.924
9.593
Compt. 57
Critical Value
P.N
2
3
4
5
6
First Situation
4.82
Test Statistic
56.004
30.844
14.666
13.848
9.534
Second Situation
4.83
Test Statistic
56.016
31.448
15.179
11.484
10.119
Table 9: Test statistic values when 4-5 distance Table 10: Test statistic values when 4-6 distance
measurement is out of from
measurement is out of from
Compt. 45
Critical Value
P.N
2
3
4
5
6
First Situation
4.82
Test Statistic
56.004
30.844
14.666
13.848
9.534
Second Situation
4.83
Test Statistic
56.208
31.365
15.021
15.074
8.071
Compt. 46
Critical Value
P.N
2
3
4
5
6
First Situation
4.82
Test Statistic
56.004
30.844
14.666
13.848
9.534
Second Situation
4.83
Test Statistic
55.856
29.464
14.489
12.964
8.904
In respect of these results, it was tried to be out more than one distance from the first
measurement plan at the same time. For this aim, firstly three distances; 1-3, 1-4, and 5-7
were out of from the first measurement plan and deformation analysis was done according to
new measurement plan. The results of the new measurement plan in test statistic are given in
Table 11. According to Table 11, it is said that the influences of these three measurements in
test statistic is insignificant. Thus, these three measurements can be omitted from the first
measurement plan.
8/15
After this computation, four distances; 1-3, 1-4, 2-3, and 5-7 were out of from the first
measurement plan. In addition to these computations the effects of five distances in test
statistic were researched. For this aim, five distances; 1-3, 1-4, 2-3, 5-7, and 4-5 were out of
from the first measurement plan. Finally, all of these computations were done for 1-3, 1-4, 23, 4-5, 5-7, and 4-6 distance measurements. By this computation, the effects of these six
measurements in test statistic values in deformation points were researched. In the end,
deformation analysis was done according to the last measurement plan. The effects of these
changes in test statistic in deformation points are given in Table 12, Table 13 and Table 14.
Table 11: Test statistic values when 1-3, 1-4
Table 12: Test statistic values when 1-3, 1-5-7
and 5-7 distance measurements are out
and 2-3 distance measurements are out
of from the first measurement plan
of from the first measurement plan
Compt. 13/14/57 First Situation Second Situation Compt. 13/14/57/23 First Situation Second Situation
Critical Value
4.82
4.84
Critical Value
4.82
4.84
P.N
Test Statistic
Test Statistic
P.N
Test Statistic
Test Statistic
2
56.004
56.835
2
56.004
58.508
30.844
3
30.515
30.844
3
26.513
4
14.666
14.938
4
14.666
16.280
5
13.848
11.996
5
13.848
12.575
6
9.534
9.796
6
9.534
10.475
Table 13: Test statistic values when 1-3, 1-4, 5-7, 2-3, and 4-5 distances are out of from the first
measurement plan.
Compt. 13/14/57/23/45
Critical Value
P.N
2
3
4
5
6
First Situation
4.82
Test Statistic
56.004
30.844
14.666
13.848
9.534
Second Situation
4.85
Test Statistic
58.027
26.301
15.868
12.859
7.434
Table 14: Test statistic values when 1-3, 1-4, 5-7, 2-3, 4-5, and 4-6 distances are out of from the first
measurement plan.
Compt. 13/14/57/23/45/46
Critical Value
P.N
2
3
4
5
6
First Situation
4.82
Test Statistic
56.004
30.844
14.666
13.848
9.534
Second Situation
4.85
Test Statistic
57.825
24.940
16.015
12.234
6.657
9/15
In the end all of these calculations, it was concluded that when1-3, 1-4, and 5-7 distance
measurements were out of from the first measurement plan, there were not important changes
in test statistics in deformation points. In this way, the most satisfactory network
configuration, which responds to first deformation values in deformation points, was
obtained. The measurement plans both the first one and the last one are given in Table 15 and
Table 16. These two tables indicate that the last measurement plan has 13% less distance
measurements than the first measurement plan.
Table 15: The first distance measurement plan in 1983. Table 16: The last distance measurement
plan in 1983.
FP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
LP
2
3
4
6
8
3
4
7
8
4
6
7
8
5
6
7
8
6
7
8
7
8
8
S(m)
818.6683
1635.1580
1801.8880
2092.2530
927.7109
816.4893
1115.0270
1618.1940
1247.8000
761.7194
1785.2480
1934.8990
1893.8360
1166.8740
1065.8740
1375.2980
1657.2610
790.9407
1448.2920
2191.9950
657.3559
1439.6920
866.2374
FP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
LP
2
6
8
3
4
7
8
4
6
7
8
5
6
7
8
6
8
7
8
8
S(m)
818.6683
2092.2530
927.7109
816.4893
1115.0270
1618.1940
1247.8000
761.7194
1785.2480
1934.8990
1893.8360
1166.8740
1065.8740
1375.2980
1657.2610
790.9407
2191.9950
657.3559
1439.6920
866.2374
In Table 17, the results of deformation analysis that were obtained from the first
measurement plan are given. Moreover, in Table 18, the results of the last analysis, which
were obtained from the last measurement plan, are given. When these two tables compare, it
comes out that:
−
The largeness of deformation vectors in deformation points 2, 3, 4,5, and 6 stays the same
−
There are no significant changes between the ellipsis parameters.
Table 17: The results of the deformation analysis obtained from the first measurement plan
Point Number
2
3
4
5
6
dY(cm)
-0.840
-0.766
-0.436
0.007
0.008
dX(cm)
0.732
0.297
0.427
0.547
0.441
A-Konf(cm) B-Konf(cm)
0.407
0.319
0.511
0.275
0.437
0.302
0.806
0.297
0.466
0.278
θ (gon)
68.94
67.24
98.88
328.72
340.16
d(cm)
1.114
0.821
0.611
0.547
0.441
t(gon)
-54.36
-76.40
-50.68
0.88
1.16
10/15
Table 18: The results of the deformation analysis obtained from the last measurement plan
Point Number
2
3
4
5
6
dY(cm)
-0.804
-0.696
-0.372
0.043
0.036
dX(cm)
0.784
0.387
0.484
0.622
0.452
A-Konf(cm) B-Konf(cm)
0.465
0.327
0.691
0.301
0.562
0.337
0.987
0.359
0.506
0.282
θ (gon)
54.80
55.06
77.52
334.61
342.76
d(cm)
1.123
0.796
0.610
0.624
0.453
t(gon)
-50.82
-67.73
-41.73
4.44
5.00
Furthermore, the horizontal displacement vectors between two epochs are shown in Figure 2
and Figure 3 together with 95 % confidence ellipses. It is clear that all of the displacement
vectors are only just falling outside the relative confidence ellipses and they are marginally
significant both the results of the first analysis and the results of the last analysis.
Figure Scale: 1/33000
Ellipse Scale: 8/5
Figure 2: The horizontal displacement vectors between 1983 and 1985 together with 95% confidence
ellipses according to the first analysis results that was done related to the first measurement plan.
11/15
Figure Scale: 1/33000
Ellipse Scale: 8/5
Figure 3: The horizontal displacement vectors between 1983 and 1985 together with 95% confidence
ellipses according to the last analysis results that was done related to the last measurement plan.
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the effects of geodetic configuration of the network in deformation analysis
were researched. It was studied to get the most satisfactory network configuration that
responds to the first deformation values in deformation points. In the last measurement plan,
distance measurements were 13% decreased. Three distance measurements, 1-3, 1-4, and 5-7
were out of from the first measurement plan and the first measurement plan was simplified.
In the end of the deformation analysis that was done according to the last measurement plan,
the largest movement occurred with 1.12 cm in the point number 2. The minor movement
occurred with 0.45 cm in the point number 6. Finally, it is obtained that the last analysis
results are the same with the first analysis results.
REFERENCES
Ayan, T., 1983. “Bağıl Güven Elipsleri ile Deformasyon Analizi”, Harita Dergisi, Sayı 91,
Ankara 1983.
Ayan, T., 1983. “Jeodezik Ağlarda Deformasyon Analizine Genel Bakış”, İTÜ Dergisi, Cilt
40, Sayı 1, İstanbul 1983.
Caspary, W.F., 1987. “Concepts of Network and Deformation Analysis”, Monograph 11,
School of Surveying, The University of New South Wales, Australia 1987.
12/15
Erol, S, Ayan, T., 2003. “An Investigation on Deformation Measurements of Engineering
Structures with GPS and Levelling Data Case Study”, International Symposium on
“Modern Technologies, Education and Professional Practice in the Globalizing World”,
Sofia 2003.
Grafarend, E.W., 1974. “Optimization of Geodetic Networks”, International Symposium on
Problems Related to the Redefinition of North American Geodetic Networks, The
University of New Brunswick, Canada 1974.
Kaplan, M.O., 2003. “Design and Analysis of Control Networks that are Established to
Determine Deformations”, MSc. Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul 2003.
Kaplan, M.O., 2003. “Deformation Analysis with Relative Confidence Ellipses in Micro
Geodetic Network in Gerede Section of The North Anatolian Fault”, International
Symposium on “Modern Technologies, Education and Professional Practice in the
Globalizing World”, Sofia 2003.
Kuang, S.L., 1991. “Optimization and Design of Monitoring Schemes”, Ph.D. dissertation.
Dep. of Surveying Engineering Technical Report No. 157, University of New
Brunswick, Canada 1991.
Mackenzie, P., 1985. “Design and Assessment of Horizontal Survey Networks”, Thesis, The
University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta 1985.
Seemkooei, A.A., 2001 “Comparision of Reliability and Geometrical Strength Criteria in
Geodetic Networks”, Journal of Geodesy 75: 227- 233, 2001.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Geodetic Institute, University of Karlsruhe, provided the 2D deformation analysis
software KADEAN 2D. The authors would like to thank the Geodetic Institute, University of
Karlsruhe.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Onur Kaplan born 13.07.1977 in Turkey.
Education:
2003: Doctor of Philosophy; ITU, Institute of Science and Technology, Geodesy and
Photogrammetry Engineering Program
2000 – 2003: Master of Science; ITU, Institute of Science and Technology, Geodesy and
Photogrammetry Engineering Program completed in May-2003
1996 – 2000: Bachelor of Science, YTU, Geodesy and Photogrammetry Engineering
Department completed in July-2000
Attendance of Workshops, symposia and conferences:
“International Symposium of Modern Technologies, Education and
Professional Practice in the Globalizing World”, 06 – 08 November 2003,
Sofia, Bulgaria
13/15
“Turkey National Geodesy Commission (TUJK) Geographic Information Systems and
Geodetic Networks Workshop”, Workshop of Turkey National Geodesy Commission, 24-26
September 2003, Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey
“Turkey National Geodesy Commission (TUJK) 2002 Year Scientific Workshop– Tectonic
and Geodetic Networks”, “Panel on the new Regulation on production of Maps and Map
Information, 10-12 October, 2002, Earthquake Research Center of Boğaziçi University,
İznik, Turkey
Thesis
MSc. Thesis: May 2003:
“Design and Analysis of Control Networks Established to Determine Deformations”,
Supervisor Prof. Dr. Tevfik Ayan
Foreign Language
English and Italian
Scientific and Technical Interests
Deformation Analysis
Optimization of Geodetic Network
CONTACTS
Onur Kaplan
Istanbul Technical University,
Civil Engineering Faculty
Department of Geodesy and Photogrammetry,
34469 Maslak-İstanbul
TURKEY
Tel. + 90 212 285 6009
Fax + 90 212 285 6587
Email: [email protected]
Tevfik Ayan
TURKEY
Tel. + 90 212 285 3825
Fax + 90212 285 6587
14/15
Serdar Erol
TURKEY
Tel. + 90 212 285 6009
Fax + 90 212 285 6587
15/15

The Effects of Geodetic Configuration of the Network in Deformation

Transkript

Benzer belgeler

Geodetic Measurements of Tectonic Deformation around Izmir

school profile 2015 2016

Review A fast approach to select the appropriate test statistics

Selçuk Yaşar Art Gallery and Museum hosts the

Global Watch

Servet-i Funun Poetry Servet-i Funun Poetry

Atmospheric Effects in SAR Interferometry

Learning to Read in a New Language